whodb_platform_team_members

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the useful 'per-call targeting without changing defaults' note, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or whether team_id is effectively required in practice.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence slightly duplicates the workspace object description already present in the schema, which keeps it from being a perfect 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However it omits that team_id is the operative identifier (zero required params is ambiguous) and gives no sense of the returned member shape or result size.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (including the nested workspace object and team_id) are documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the workspace shape, adding no meaning beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List members of one organization team.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling whodb_platform_teams (lists teams) and whodb_platform_org_members (org-level), though it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation must be inferred from the noun phrase.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it (when you need the members of a specific team) and notes the workspace override, but it offers no explicit when/when-not guidance and never points to whodb_platform_teams or whodb_platform_org_members as alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.